Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

April 14, 2019 | ื˜ืณ ื‘ื ื™ืกืŸ ืชืฉืขืดื˜

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Chullin 138

What is the minimum amount of wool that obligates one to give part to the priest? If one sheared one sheep adn sold then another and sold, is one obligated after the fifth to give to the priest? The last chapter of Chullin deals with the mitza of sending off the mother bird. Details of this are discsused as well as a comparison of the last number of chapters in Chullin that all have the same structure.


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

ื‘ืฉืฉื™ื ื•ืชื ื™ ืชื ื ืžื ื” ื‘ืŸ ืืจื‘ืขื™ื ืกืœืขื™ื ืื™ืŸ ื•ื”ืชื ืŸ ื—ืžืช ื—ื“ืฉื” ืืฃ ืขืœ ืคื™ ืฉืžืงื‘ืœืช ืจืžื•ื ื™ื ื˜ื”ื•ืจื”

equivalent to the weight of sixty sela, as stated by Rav Dimi. The Gemara asks: But does a tanna teach that a maneh is of forty sela? The Gemara answers: Yes; and we learned in the Tosefta (Kelim, Bava Metzia 6:2): With regard to a new leather flask that is not yet completely sewn together, even though it can contain pomegranates, nevertheless, because it cannot contain liquids it is considered unfinished and is not susceptible to ritual impurity.

ืชืคืจื” ื•ื ืงืจืขื” ืฉื™ืขื•ืจื” ื›ืžื•ืฆื™ื ืจืžื•ื ื™ื ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ื‘ืŸ ื™ืขืงื‘ ืื•ืžืจ ื›ืคืงืขื™ื•ืช ืฉืœ ืฉืชื™ ืื—ืช ืžืืจื‘ืข ื‘ืžื ื” ื‘ืŸ ืืจื‘ืขื™ื ืกืœืขื™ื

If one sewed the flask together and it tore, the measure of the tear that renders the flask no longer susceptible to impurity is a hole large enough to enable pomegranates to go out, as then it ceases to serve as a vessel. Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaโ€™akov says: The tear must be like the measure of balls of a warp, the weight of each of which is one-quarter of a maneh of forty sela. This tanna explicitly mentions a maneh of forty sela.

ื•ื›ืžื” ื ื•ืชืŸ ืœื• ื›ื•ืณ ืชื ื ืœื ืฉื™ืœื‘ื ื ื• ื•ื™ืชื ื ื• ืœื• ืืœื ืฉื™ืœื‘ื ื ื• ื›ื”ืŸ ื•ื™ืขืžื•ื“ ืขืœ ื—ืžืฉ ืกืœืขื™ื

ยง The mishna states: And how much of the sheared wool does one give to the priest? One gives him the weight of five sela in Judea, which are ten sela in the Galilee, once laundered and not when sullied. The Sages taught: The mishna does not mean that one must launder the wool and then give it to the priest; rather, the meaning is that one must give him enough wool for the priest to launder it and it will amount to five sela.

ื›ื“ื™ ืœืขืฉื•ืช ื‘ื’ื“ ืงื˜ืŸ ืžื ื”ื ื™ ืžื™ืœื™ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ื‘ืŸ ืœื•ื™ ืืžืจ ืงืจื ืœืขืžื“ ืœืฉืจืช ื“ื‘ืจ ืฉื”ื•ื ืจืื•ื™ ืœืฉื™ืจื•ืช ืžืื™ ื ื™ื”ื• ืื‘ื ื˜

The mishna states: The measure that must be given to the priest is enough to fashion a small garment from it. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: The verse that follows the mention of the first sheared wool states: โ€œFor the Lord your God has chosen him out of all your tribes, to stand to serve in the name of the Lord, he and his sons foreverโ€ (Deuteronomy 18:5). The term โ€œto serveโ€ indicates that the first sheared wool given to the priest must be a matter that is fitting for service in the Temple, i.e., an amount of wool sufficient to fashion one of the priestly garments. What is the garment in question? It is the belt, which is made from wool weighing five sela.

ืื™ืžื ืžืขื™ืœ ืชืคืฉืช ืžืจื•ื‘ื” ืœื ืชืคืฉืช ืชืคืฉืช ืžื•ืขื˜ ืชืคืฉืช

The Gemara asks: Is the garment in question necessarily the belt? Say that it is the robe, which is fashioned from a far greater amount of wool. The Gemara answers: This inference is based on the principle that if you grasped a lot you did not grasp anything; if you grasped a little, you grasped something. Since a belt meets the condition of โ€œto serve,โ€ as it is one of the priestly vestments, one cannot say that the obligation is any greater than the amount of wool needed to fashion a belt.

ื•ืื™ืžื ื›ื™ืคื” ืฉืœ ืฆืžืจ ื“ืชื ื™ื ื›ื™ืคื” ืฉืœ ืฆืžืจ ื”ื™ืชื” ืžื•ื ื—ืช ื‘ืจืืฉ ื›ื”ืŸ ื’ื“ื•ืœ ื•ืขืœื™ื” ืฆื™ืฅ ื ืชื•ืŸ ืœืงื™ื™ื ืžื” ืฉื ืืžืจ ื•ืฉืžืช ืืชื• ืขืœ ืคืชื™ืœ ืชื›ืœืช

But say that the garment in question is the cap of wool that the High Priest wears, which is smaller than the belt. As it is taught in a baraita: A cap of wool was placed on the High Priestโ€™s head, and the frontplate was placed upon it, to fulfill that which is stated with regard to the frontplate: โ€œAnd you shall put it on a thread of sky blue, and it shall be upon the mitre; upon the forefront of the mitre it shall beโ€ (Exodus 28:37). The term โ€œthread of sky blueโ€ is referring to the cap of sky-blue wool.

ืืžืจ ืงืจื ื”ื•ื ื•ื‘ื ื™ื• ื“ื‘ืจ ื”ืฉื•ื” ืœืื”ืจืŸ ื•ืœื‘ื ื™ื•

The Gemara answers that the verse states: โ€œTo stand to serve in the name of the Lord, he and his sonsโ€ (Deuteronomy 18:5), which indicates that the verse is referring to a matter, i.e., a garment, that is equal for Aaron and for his sons. The wool given to the priest must be of sufficient size for fashioning a garment worn both by the High Priest and by common priests, whereas the woolen cap is worn only by the High Priest.

ืื‘ื ื˜ ื ืžื™ ืœื ืฉื•ื™ ื”ื ื™ื—ื ืœืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ืื‘ื ื˜ื• ืฉืœ ื›ื”ืŸ ื’ื“ื•ืœ ืœื ื–ื”ื• ืื‘ื ื˜ื• ืฉืœ ื›ื”ืŸ ื”ื“ื™ื•ื˜ ืฉืคื™ืจ

The Gemara objects: But the belt is also not equal for all priests. The Gemara elaborates: This works out well according to the one who said that the linen belt of the High Priest worn on Yom Kippur is not the same as the belt of an ordinary priest. According to this opinion, both the belt of common priests and the belt worn by the High Priest during the rest of the year were fashioned from a mixture of wool and linen. This belt is therefore equal for all priests, and it works out well.

ืืœื ืœืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ื–ื”ื• ืื‘ื ื˜ื• ืฉืœ ื›ื”ืŸ ื”ื“ื™ื•ื˜ ืžืื™ ืื™ื›ื ืœืžื™ืžืจ ืฉื ืื‘ื ื˜ ื‘ืขื•ืœื

But according to the one who said that the linen belt worn by the High Priest on Yom Kippur is the same as the belt of an ordinary priest, what can be said? According to this opinion, the belt fashioned from wool and linen is worn only by the High Priest during the rest of the year. The Gemara answers: Although the belts are different, the term belt in general applies to all priests, whereas no type of cap is worn by common priests.

ืœื ื”ืกืคื™ืง ืœื™ืชื ื• ื•ื›ื•ืณ ืื™ืชืžืจ ื’ื–ื– ื•ืžื›ืจ ืจืืฉื•ื ื” ืจื‘ ื—ืกื“ื ืืžืจ ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืจื‘ื™ ื ืชืŸ ื‘ืจ ื”ื•ืฉืขื™ื ืืžืจ ืคื˜ื•ืจ

ยง The mishna states: If the owner of the shearing did not manage to give it to the priest until he dyed it, he is exempt from the obligation of giving the first sheared wool. The mishna further teaches that one who purchases the fleece of the sheep of a gentile is exempt from the obligation of the first sheared wool. It was stated that amoraโ€™im disagreed with regard to one who owned five sheep and he sheared and sold the first sheep before shearing the second, and in this manner sold each sheep after shearing it. When he finished shearing he owned the requisite five fleeces, to which the obligation of the first sheared wool applies, but he no longer owned the sheep. Rav แธคisda says: He is obligated in the mitzva of the first sheared wool; and Rabbi Natan bar Hoshaya says: He is exempt from the mitzva of the first sheared wool.

ืจื‘ ื—ืกื“ื ืืžืจ ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื“ื”ื ื’ื–ื– ืจื‘ื™ ื ืชืŸ ื‘ืจ ื”ื•ืฉืขื™ื ืืžืจ ืคื˜ื•ืจ ื‘ืขื™ื“ื ื ื“ืงื ืžืœื ืฉื™ืขื•ืจื ื‘ืขื™ื ืŸ ืฆืื ืš ื•ืœื™ื›ื

The Gemara clarifies the two opinions. Rav แธคisda says that he is obligated, as he sheared five sheep that he owned at the time of shearing, and therefore the term: โ€œYour flockโ€ (Deuteronomy 18:4), applies to this case. Rabbi Natan bar Hoshaya says that he is exempt, as at the time that the measure of five fleeces is completed, we require the term โ€œyour flockโ€ to apply, since the obligation takes effect at that stage, and in this case it does not apply.

ืชื ืŸ ื”ืœื•ืงื— ื’ื– ืฆืื ื• ืฉืœ ื’ื•ื™ ืคื˜ื•ืจ ืžืจืืฉื™ืช ื”ื’ื– ื”ื ืฆืื ื• ืœื’ื–ื•ื– ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืืžืื™ ื›ืœ ื—ื“ ื•ื—ื“ ื‘ืชืจ ื’ื™ื–ื” ื ืคืงื ืœื” ืžืจืฉื•ืชื™ื”

The Gemara raises a challenge: We learned in the mishna (135a): One who purchases the fleece of the sheep of a gentile is exempt from the obligation of the first sheared wool, as he purchased only the fleece but not the sheep. One can infer from here that if he purchased the gentileโ€™s sheep themselves in order to shear them and then return them to the gentile, he is obligated, because the sheep belonged to him at the time of shearing. But why is he obligated, according to the opinion of Rabbi Natan bar Hoshaya? Each and every one of the sheep, after the shearing is completed, leaves his possession, and when he has sheared five sheep, the term โ€œyour flockโ€ no longer applies to them.

ืชืจื’ืžื ืจื‘ ื—ืกื“ื ืืœื™ื‘ื ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื ืชืŸ ื‘ืจ ื”ื•ืฉืขื™ื ื›ื’ื•ืŸ ืฉื”ืงื ืŸ ืœื• ื›ืœ ืฉืœืฉื™ื ื™ื•ื

Rav แธคisda interpreted the mishna according to the opinion of Rabbi Natan bar Hoshaya: The mishna is referring to a case where the gentile transferred ownership to him for the entire period of thirty days during which the Jew sheared the sheep. Therefore, he retained ownership after he completed shearing, and the term โ€œyour flockโ€ does apply to the sheep at the time when the obligation of the first sheared wool took effect.

ื”ืœื•ืงื— ื’ื– ืฆืื ื• ืฉืœ ื—ื‘ื™ืจื• ื›ื•ืณ ืžืืŸ ืชื ื ื“ื”ื™ื›ื ื“ืื™ื›ื ืฉื™ื•ืจื ื’ื‘ื™ ืžื•ื›ืจ ื‘ืชืจ ืžื•ื›ืจ ืื–ืœื™ื ืŸ

ยง The mishna teaches: With regard to one who purchases the fleece of the sheep of another Jew, if the seller kept some of the wool, then he is obligated to give the first sheared wool to the priest. If the seller did not keep any of the wool, the buyer is obligated to give it. The Gemara asks: Who is the tanna who taught that in a case where there is residual wool in the possession of the seller, we follow the seller in determining who is obligated in the mitzva of first sheared wool?

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื—ืกื“ื ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื”ื™ื ื“ืชื ืŸ ื”ืžื•ื›ืจ ืงืœื—ื™ ืื™ืœืŸ ื‘ืชื•ืš ืฉื“ื”ื• ื ื•ืชืŸ ืคืื” ืœื›ืœ ืื—ื“ ื•ืื—ื“

Rav แธคisda said: The tanna who taught the mishna is Rabbi Yehuda, as we learned in a mishna (Peโ€™a 3:5): With regard to one who sells a few fruit-bearing tree stalks within his field, without selling the field itself, for the buyer to uproot them and plant them in his own field, the buyer gives separate peโ€™a for each and every one of the trees. The field does not combine the trees into a single unit for peโ€™a, as the land is not owned by the buyer.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืื™ืžืชื™ ื‘ื–ืžืŸ ืฉืœื ืฉื™ื™ืจ ื‘ืขืœ ื”ืฉื“ื” ืื‘ืœ ืฉื™ื™ืจ ื‘ืขืœ ื”ืฉื“ื” ื ื•ืชืŸ ืคืื” ืขืœ ื”ื›ืœ

Rabbi Yehuda said: When is it the buyerโ€™s obligation to give peโ€™a? It is when the owner of the field did not leave any of the trees in his possession. But if the owner of the field left some of the trees in his possession, the owner gives peโ€™a for all the trees. Just as in the case of peโ€™a, if the seller left trees for himself then the obligation applies to him, so too, with regard to the first sheared wool, if the seller left some of the wool for himself, the obligation applies to him.

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ื ื•ื”ื ืžืจ ื”ื•ื ื“ืืžืจ ื•ื”ื•ื ืฉื”ืชื—ื™ืœ ื‘ืขืœ ื”ืฉื“ื” ืœืงืฆื•ืจ

Rava said to Rav แธคisda: But wasnโ€™t it you, Master, who said with regard to Rabbi Yehudaโ€™s ruling that the owner gives peโ€™a for all the trees: This is the halakha only when the owner of the field began to harvest the fruit before he sold the trees, as the obligation to give peโ€™a had already applied to him. By contrast, with regard to the first sheared wool, the obligation came into effect only after he sold his sheep.

ื•ื›ื™ ืชื™ืžื ื”ื›ื™ ื ืžื™ ื•ื”ื•ื ืฉื”ืชื—ื™ืœ ืœื’ื–ื•ื– ื‘ืฉืœืžื ื”ืชื ื•ื‘ืงืฆืจื›ื ืืช ืงืฆื™ืจ ืืจืฆื›ื ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืžืขื™ื“ื ื ื“ืืชื—ื™ืœ ืœืงืฆื•ืจ ืžื™ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื‘ื›ื•ืœื” ืฉื“ื” ืืœื ื”ื›ื ืžืขื™ื“ื ื ื“ืืชื—ื™ืœ ืœืžื™ื’ื– ืœื ืžื™ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื‘ื›ื•ืœื™ื” ืขื“ืจื™ื”

And if you would say that so too, with regard to the first sheared wool, this halakha that the seller gives the first sheared wool applies only if the seller began to shear the sheep before he sold them, that explanation is difficult. The Gemara elaborates: Granted, there, with regard to peโ€™a, it is written: โ€œAnd when you reap the harvest of your landโ€ (Leviticus 19:9), which indicates that from the time that he began to harvest he is obligated in the mitzva of peโ€™a with regard to the entire field. But here, in the case of the first sheared wool, he is not obligated with regard to the entire flock from the time that he began to shear his sheep. Therefore, even if he began shearing before he sold the sheep, the obligation to give the first sheared wool should not apply to the seller.

ืืœื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ื”ืื™ ืชื ื ื”ื•ื ื“ืชื ืŸ ืืžืจ ืœื• ืžื›ื•ืจ ืœื™ ื‘ื ื™ ืžืขื™ื” ืฉืœ ืคืจื” ื–ื• ื•ื”ื™ื” ื‘ื”ืŸ ืžืชื ื•ืช ื ื•ืชื ืŸ ืœื›ื”ืŸ ื•ืื™ืŸ ืžื ื›ื” ืœื• ืžืŸ ื”ื“ืžื™ื ืœืงื— ืžืžื ื• ื‘ืžืฉืงืœ ื ื•ืชื ืŸ ืœื›ื”ืŸ ื•ืžื ื›ื” ืœื• ืžืŸ ื”ื“ืžื™ื

Rather, Rava said: It is this tanna who taught the mishna, as we learned in a different mishna (132a): If one said to a butcher: Sell me the innards of this cow, and there were gifts of the priesthood included in them, i.e., the maw, the purchaser must give them to the priest, and he may not deduct the value of the gifts from the money that he pays the butcher, as it is assumed that the gifts were not included in the sale. If he purchased the innards from the butcher by weight, the buyer must give the gifts to a priest and he may deduct the value of the gifts from the money that he pays the butcher. If the priestly gifts have not yet been separated from the animal, the price by weight includes the price of these gifts. But since the priests had the right to their gifts from the time of the slaughter, the buyer does not need to pay for them and may therefore deduct their value from his payment.

ืืœืžื ืžืชื ื•ืช ื“ื›ื”ืŸ ืœื ืžื–ื‘ื™ืŸ ืื™ื ื™ืฉ ื”ื›ื ื ืžื™ ืžืชื ื•ืช ื“ื›ื”ืŸ ืœื ืžื–ื‘ื™ืŸ ืื™ื ื™ืฉ ื”ืœื›ืš ืฉื™ื™ืจ ื”ืžื•ื›ืจ ืžื•ื›ืจ ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื“ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืœื•ืงื— ืžืชื ื” ื“ื›ื”ืŸ ื’ื‘ืš ื”ื™ื ืœื ืฉื™ื™ืจ ืœื•ืงื— ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื“ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืžื•ื›ืจ ืžืชื ื” ื“ื›ื”ืŸ ืœื ื–ื‘ื ื™ ืœืš

Evidently, a person does not sell the gifts belonging to the priest, and therefore they are not included in the sale of the innards unless they were sold by weight. Here too, with regard to the first sheared wool, a person does not sell the gifts belonging to the priest. Therefore, if the seller left wool in his possession, the seller is obligated to give the first sheared wool from the remaining wool for that which he sold, as the buyer can say to the seller: The gift of the priest is in your possession, since you did not sell me everything. If the seller did not leave any wool in his possession, the buyer is obligated to give the first sheared wool and he does not deduct its value from the price, as the seller can say to him: I did not sell the gift of the priest to you, i.e., there was no obligation to give the gifts to a priest when I sold the wool to you, and therefore the buyer is required to give the gifts to the priest.

ื”ื“ืจืŸ ืขืœืš ืจืืฉื™ืช ื”ื’ื–

 

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ืฉื™ืœื•ื— ื”ืงืŸ ื ื•ื”ื’ ื‘ืืจืฅ ื•ื‘ื—ื•ืฆื” ืœืืจืฅ ื‘ืคื ื™ ื”ื‘ื™ืช ื•ืฉืœื ื‘ืคื ื™ ื”ื‘ื™ืช ื‘ื—ื•ืœื™ืŸ ืื‘ืœ ืœื ื‘ืžื•ืงื“ืฉื™ืŸ ื—ื•ืžืจ ื‘ื›ืกื•ื™ ื”ื“ื ืžืฉื™ืœื•ื— ื”ืงืŸ ืฉื›ืกื•ื™ ื”ื“ื ื ื•ื”ื’ ื‘ื—ื™ื” ื•ื‘ืขื•ืฃ ื‘ืžื–ื•ืžืŸ ื•ื‘ืฉืื™ืŸ ืžื–ื•ืžืŸ ื•ืฉื™ืœื•ื— ื”ืงืŸ ืื™ื ื• ื ื•ื”ื’ ืืœื ื‘ืขื•ืฃ ื•ืื™ื ื• ื ื•ื”ื’ ืืœื ื‘ืฉืื™ื ื• ืžื–ื•ืžืŸ

MISHNA: The mitzva of sending away the mother bird from the nest applies both in Eretz Yisrael and outside of Eretz Yisrael, and in the presence of the Temple and not in the presence of the Temple. It applies to non-sacred birds, but it does not apply to sacrificial birds. There are more stringent elements in the covering of the blood than in the sending away of the mother bird from the nest, as the covering of the blood applies to undomesticated animals and birds, to animals and birds that are readily available in oneโ€™s home, and to animals and birds that are not readily available and are hunted in the wild; and the sending of the mother bird from the nest applies only to birds, and applies only to birds that are not readily available.

ืื™ื–ื”ื• ืฉืื™ื ื• ืžื–ื•ืžืŸ ื›ื’ื•ืŸ ืื•ื•ื–ื™ืŸ ื•ืชืจื ื’ื•ืœื™ื ืฉืงื ื ื• ื‘ืคืจื“ืก ืื‘ืœ ืื ืงื ื ื• ื‘ื‘ื™ืช ื•ื›ืŸ ื™ื•ื ื™ ื”ืจื“ืกื™ืื•ืช ืคื˜ื•ืจ ืžืฉื™ืœื•ื— ืขื•ืฃ ื˜ืžื ืคื˜ื•ืจ ืžืœืฉืœื— ืขื•ืฃ ื˜ืžื ืจื•ื‘ืฅ ืขืœ ื‘ื™ืฆื™ ืขื•ืฃ ื˜ื”ื•ืจ ื•ื˜ื”ื•ืจ ืจื•ื‘ืฅ ืขืœ ื‘ื™ืฆื™ ืขื•ืฃ ื˜ืžื ืคื˜ื•ืจ ืžืœืฉืœื— ืงื•ืจื ื–ื›ืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ืžื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื•ื—ื›ืžื™ื ืคื•ื˜ืจื™ืŸ

What are considered birds that are not readily available? They are any birds, even domesticated, that may fly away at any time, such as geese or chickens that nested in the orchard [pardes]. But if geese or chickens nested in the house, and likewise, with regard to domesticated pigeons [yonei hardiseiโ€™ot], one is exempt from sending away the mother bird. With regard to the nest of a non-kosher bird, one is exempt from sending away the mother bird. In a case where a non-kosher bird is resting upon the eggs of a kosher bird, or a kosher bird is resting upon the eggs of a non-kosher bird, one is exempt from sending away the bird. With regard to a male pheasant [korei], which is known to sit upon the eggs like the female of its species, Rabbi Eliezer deems one obligated to send it away, and the Rabbis deem one exempt from sending it away.

ื’ืžืณ ืจื‘ื™ ืื‘ื™ืŸ ื•ืจื‘ื™ ืžื™ื™ืฉื ื—ื“ ืืžืจ ื›ืœ ื”ื™ื›ื ื“ืชื ืŸ ื‘ืืจืฅ ื•ื‘ื—ื•ืฆื” ืœืืจืฅ ืฉืœื ืœืฆื•ืจืš ืœื‘ื“ ืžืจืืฉื™ืช ื”ื’ื– ืœืืคื•ืงื™ ืžื“ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขืื™ ื“ืืžืจ ืจืืฉื™ืช ื”ื’ื– ืื™ื ื• ื ื•ื”ื’ ืืœื ื‘ืืจืฅ

GEMARA: The mishna contains several phrases related to the mitzva of sending away the mother bird from the nest that also appear in the first mishna of several other chapters of this tractate. With regard to this, Rabbi Avin and Rabbi Meyasha made the following statements. One of them said: Anywhere in this tractate that we learned in a mishna that a particular mitzva applies both in Eretz Yisrael and outside of Eretz Yisrael, it is stated needlessly, as those mitzvot are not related to land, such that there is no need to teach that they apply outside of Eretz Yisrael as well. This is true except for the mitzva of the first shearing of wool, which one must give to a priest. It was necessary to teach that that mitzva applies even outside of Eretz Yisrael, to exclude the opinion of Rabbi Ilai, who said: The first shearing is in effect only in Eretz Yisrael.

ื•ื—ื“ ืืžืจ ื›ืœ ื”ื™ื›ื ื“ืชื ืŸ ื‘ืคื ื™ ื”ื‘ื™ืช ื•ืฉืœื ื‘ืคื ื™ ื”ื‘ื™ืช ืฉืœื ืœืฆื•ืจืš ืœื‘ื“ ืžืื•ืชื• ื•ืืช ื‘ื ื• ืกืœืงื ื“ืขืชืš ืืžื™ื ื ื”ื•ืื™ืœ ื•ื‘ืขื ื™ื ื ื“ืงื“ืฉื™ื ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื‘ื–ืžืŸ ื“ืื™ื›ื ืงื“ืฉื™ื ื ื ื”ื•ื’ ื‘ื–ืžืŸ ื“ืœื™ื›ื ืงื“ืฉื™ื ืœื ื ื ื”ื•ื’ ืงื ืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ

And the other one said: Anywhere in this tractate that we learned in a mishna that a particular mitzva applies both in the presence of the Temple and not in the presence of the Temple, it is stated needlessly, as these mitzvot are requirements of the object itself, and there is no need to teach that they apply even after the destruction of the Temple. This is true except for the prohibition against slaughtering an animal itself and its offspring on the same day. It was necessary to teach that this mitzva applies even after the destruction of the Temple, because it might enter your mind to say: Since this prohibition is written in a passage in the Torah discussing the matter of sacrificial animals (see Leviticus, chapter 22), at a time when there are sacrificial animals, i.e., when the Temple is standing, we will abide by it, but at a time when there are no sacrificial animals, after the destruction of the Temple, we will not abide by it. Therefore, that mishna teaches us that this is not so.

ื•ืชืจื•ื™ื™ื”ื• ืืžืจื™ ื›ืœ ื”ื™ื›ื ื“ืชื ืŸ ื‘ื—ื•ืœื™ืŸ ื•ื‘ืžื•ืงื“ืฉื™ื ืœืฆื•ืจืš ืœื‘ื“ ืžื’ื™ื“ ื”ื ืฉื” ืคืฉื™ื˜ื ืžืฉื•ื ื“ืื™ืงื“ืฉ ืคืงืข ืœื™ื” ืื™ืกื•ืจ ื’ื™ื“ ื”ื ืฉื” ืžื™ื ื™ื”

And both of them said: Anywhere in this tractate that we learned in a mishna that a particular mitzva applies both to non-sacred animals and to sacrificial animals, it is stated necessarily. This is the case except for the mishna discussing the sciatic nerve, as it is obvious that the prohibition applies to sacrificial animals as well. Can it enter oneโ€™s mind to say that because it was consecrated, the prohibition of eating the sciatic nerve is abrogated from the animal?

ื•ืœืื• ืื•ืงื™ืžื ื ื‘ื•ืœื“ื•ืช ืงื“ืฉื™ื

The Gemara asks: But didnโ€™t we establish that the mishna there (89b) is referring to offspring of sacrificial animals? Without the mishna, one might have thought that since the offspring was already prohibited as a sacrificial animal before its sciatic nerve was even formed, the prohibition with regard to the latter does not take effect where the former prohibition already exists. If so, it was in fact necessary to teach this halakha.

ื•ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ืื•ืงื™ืžื ื ืœืื• ืžืฉื•ื ื“ืงืฉื™ื ืœืŸ ืœื ืœื™ืชื ื™ ืžืขื™ืงืจื ื ืžื™ ืœื ืชืงืฉื™ ืœืš ืื™ื™ื“ื™ ื“ืชื ื ืœืฆื•ืจืš ืชื ื ื ืžื™ ืฉืœื ืœืฆื•ืจืš

The Gemara responds: But what is the reason we interpreted that mishna as referring to offspring of sacrificial animals? Is it not due to the fact that the question: Let the mishna not teach that the prohibition applies to both non-sacred and sacrificial animals, is difficult for us? It is in response to this question that Rabbi Avin and Rabbi Meyasha stated that even from the outset, this should not pose a difficulty for you. Rather, since the phrase: Applies to both non-sacred and sacrificial animals, is taught necessarily with regard to the prohibition against slaughtering an animal itself and its offspring, it is also taught needlessly with regard to the prohibition against eating the sciatic nerve, to parallel the formula of the other mishna.

ื‘ื—ื•ืœื™ืŸ ืื‘ืœ ืœื ื‘ืžื•ืงื“ืฉื™ื ืืžืื™ ืœื ื“ืืžืจ ืงืจื ืฉืœื— ืชืฉืœื— ืืช ื”ืื ื‘ืžื™ ืฉืืชื” ืžืฆื•ื•ื” ืœืฉืœื—ื• ื™ืฆื ื–ื” ืฉืื™ ืืชื” ืžืฆื•ื•ื” ืœืฉืœื—ื• ืืœื ืœื”ื‘ื™ืื• ืœื™ื“ื™ ื’ื–ื‘ืจ

ยง The mishna states that the mitzva of sending away the mother bird from the nest applies to non-sacred birds, but not to sacrificial birds. The Gemara asks: Why does this mitzva not apply to sacrificial birds? The Gemara responds: As the verse states: โ€œYou shall send the motherโ€ (Deuteronomy 22:7). The verse refers only to a bird that you are commanded to send away, i.e., a non-sacred bird; that excludes this sacrificial bird, which you are not commanded to send away, but rather to bring it to the custody of the Temple treasurer.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ื ื ื”ืœื›ืš ืขื•ืฃ ื˜ื”ื•ืจ ืฉื”ืจื’ ืืช ื”ื ืคืฉ ืคื˜ื•ืจ ืžืฉืœื•ื— ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ื“ืืžืจ ืงืจื ืฉืœื— ืชืฉืœื— ืืช ื”ืื ื‘ืžื™ ืฉืืชื” ืžืฆื•ื•ื” ืœืฉืœื—ื• ื™ืฆื ื–ื” ืฉืื™ ืืชื” ืžืฆื•ื•ื” ืœืฉืœื—ื• ืืœื ืœื”ื‘ื™ืื• ืœื‘ื™ืช ื“ื™ืŸ ื”ื™ื›ื™ ื“ืžื™ ืื™ ื“ื’ืžืจ ื“ื™ื ื™ื”

Ravina says: Therefore, with regard to a kosher bird that killed a person and must now be executed, one is exempt from sending it away. What is the reason for this? It is as the verse states: โ€œYou shall send the mother.โ€ The verse is referring only to a bird that you are commanded to send away, which excludes this bird that you are not commanded to send away, but rather to bring it to court. The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances of this case, i.e., how is this bird that killed a person now resting on its eggs? If this is a case where its verdict of execution was issued,

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Chullin 138

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Chullin 138

ื‘ืฉืฉื™ื ื•ืชื ื™ ืชื ื ืžื ื” ื‘ืŸ ืืจื‘ืขื™ื ืกืœืขื™ื ืื™ืŸ ื•ื”ืชื ืŸ ื—ืžืช ื—ื“ืฉื” ืืฃ ืขืœ ืคื™ ืฉืžืงื‘ืœืช ืจืžื•ื ื™ื ื˜ื”ื•ืจื”

equivalent to the weight of sixty sela, as stated by Rav Dimi. The Gemara asks: But does a tanna teach that a maneh is of forty sela? The Gemara answers: Yes; and we learned in the Tosefta (Kelim, Bava Metzia 6:2): With regard to a new leather flask that is not yet completely sewn together, even though it can contain pomegranates, nevertheless, because it cannot contain liquids it is considered unfinished and is not susceptible to ritual impurity.

ืชืคืจื” ื•ื ืงืจืขื” ืฉื™ืขื•ืจื” ื›ืžื•ืฆื™ื ืจืžื•ื ื™ื ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ื‘ืŸ ื™ืขืงื‘ ืื•ืžืจ ื›ืคืงืขื™ื•ืช ืฉืœ ืฉืชื™ ืื—ืช ืžืืจื‘ืข ื‘ืžื ื” ื‘ืŸ ืืจื‘ืขื™ื ืกืœืขื™ื

If one sewed the flask together and it tore, the measure of the tear that renders the flask no longer susceptible to impurity is a hole large enough to enable pomegranates to go out, as then it ceases to serve as a vessel. Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaโ€™akov says: The tear must be like the measure of balls of a warp, the weight of each of which is one-quarter of a maneh of forty sela. This tanna explicitly mentions a maneh of forty sela.

ื•ื›ืžื” ื ื•ืชืŸ ืœื• ื›ื•ืณ ืชื ื ืœื ืฉื™ืœื‘ื ื ื• ื•ื™ืชื ื ื• ืœื• ืืœื ืฉื™ืœื‘ื ื ื• ื›ื”ืŸ ื•ื™ืขืžื•ื“ ืขืœ ื—ืžืฉ ืกืœืขื™ื

ยง The mishna states: And how much of the sheared wool does one give to the priest? One gives him the weight of five sela in Judea, which are ten sela in the Galilee, once laundered and not when sullied. The Sages taught: The mishna does not mean that one must launder the wool and then give it to the priest; rather, the meaning is that one must give him enough wool for the priest to launder it and it will amount to five sela.

ื›ื“ื™ ืœืขืฉื•ืช ื‘ื’ื“ ืงื˜ืŸ ืžื ื”ื ื™ ืžื™ืœื™ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ื‘ืŸ ืœื•ื™ ืืžืจ ืงืจื ืœืขืžื“ ืœืฉืจืช ื“ื‘ืจ ืฉื”ื•ื ืจืื•ื™ ืœืฉื™ืจื•ืช ืžืื™ ื ื™ื”ื• ืื‘ื ื˜

The mishna states: The measure that must be given to the priest is enough to fashion a small garment from it. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: The verse that follows the mention of the first sheared wool states: โ€œFor the Lord your God has chosen him out of all your tribes, to stand to serve in the name of the Lord, he and his sons foreverโ€ (Deuteronomy 18:5). The term โ€œto serveโ€ indicates that the first sheared wool given to the priest must be a matter that is fitting for service in the Temple, i.e., an amount of wool sufficient to fashion one of the priestly garments. What is the garment in question? It is the belt, which is made from wool weighing five sela.

ืื™ืžื ืžืขื™ืœ ืชืคืฉืช ืžืจื•ื‘ื” ืœื ืชืคืฉืช ืชืคืฉืช ืžื•ืขื˜ ืชืคืฉืช

The Gemara asks: Is the garment in question necessarily the belt? Say that it is the robe, which is fashioned from a far greater amount of wool. The Gemara answers: This inference is based on the principle that if you grasped a lot you did not grasp anything; if you grasped a little, you grasped something. Since a belt meets the condition of โ€œto serve,โ€ as it is one of the priestly vestments, one cannot say that the obligation is any greater than the amount of wool needed to fashion a belt.

ื•ืื™ืžื ื›ื™ืคื” ืฉืœ ืฆืžืจ ื“ืชื ื™ื ื›ื™ืคื” ืฉืœ ืฆืžืจ ื”ื™ืชื” ืžื•ื ื—ืช ื‘ืจืืฉ ื›ื”ืŸ ื’ื“ื•ืœ ื•ืขืœื™ื” ืฆื™ืฅ ื ืชื•ืŸ ืœืงื™ื™ื ืžื” ืฉื ืืžืจ ื•ืฉืžืช ืืชื• ืขืœ ืคืชื™ืœ ืชื›ืœืช

But say that the garment in question is the cap of wool that the High Priest wears, which is smaller than the belt. As it is taught in a baraita: A cap of wool was placed on the High Priestโ€™s head, and the frontplate was placed upon it, to fulfill that which is stated with regard to the frontplate: โ€œAnd you shall put it on a thread of sky blue, and it shall be upon the mitre; upon the forefront of the mitre it shall beโ€ (Exodus 28:37). The term โ€œthread of sky blueโ€ is referring to the cap of sky-blue wool.

ืืžืจ ืงืจื ื”ื•ื ื•ื‘ื ื™ื• ื“ื‘ืจ ื”ืฉื•ื” ืœืื”ืจืŸ ื•ืœื‘ื ื™ื•

The Gemara answers that the verse states: โ€œTo stand to serve in the name of the Lord, he and his sonsโ€ (Deuteronomy 18:5), which indicates that the verse is referring to a matter, i.e., a garment, that is equal for Aaron and for his sons. The wool given to the priest must be of sufficient size for fashioning a garment worn both by the High Priest and by common priests, whereas the woolen cap is worn only by the High Priest.

ืื‘ื ื˜ ื ืžื™ ืœื ืฉื•ื™ ื”ื ื™ื—ื ืœืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ืื‘ื ื˜ื• ืฉืœ ื›ื”ืŸ ื’ื“ื•ืœ ืœื ื–ื”ื• ืื‘ื ื˜ื• ืฉืœ ื›ื”ืŸ ื”ื“ื™ื•ื˜ ืฉืคื™ืจ

The Gemara objects: But the belt is also not equal for all priests. The Gemara elaborates: This works out well according to the one who said that the linen belt of the High Priest worn on Yom Kippur is not the same as the belt of an ordinary priest. According to this opinion, both the belt of common priests and the belt worn by the High Priest during the rest of the year were fashioned from a mixture of wool and linen. This belt is therefore equal for all priests, and it works out well.

ืืœื ืœืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ื–ื”ื• ืื‘ื ื˜ื• ืฉืœ ื›ื”ืŸ ื”ื“ื™ื•ื˜ ืžืื™ ืื™ื›ื ืœืžื™ืžืจ ืฉื ืื‘ื ื˜ ื‘ืขื•ืœื

But according to the one who said that the linen belt worn by the High Priest on Yom Kippur is the same as the belt of an ordinary priest, what can be said? According to this opinion, the belt fashioned from wool and linen is worn only by the High Priest during the rest of the year. The Gemara answers: Although the belts are different, the term belt in general applies to all priests, whereas no type of cap is worn by common priests.

ืœื ื”ืกืคื™ืง ืœื™ืชื ื• ื•ื›ื•ืณ ืื™ืชืžืจ ื’ื–ื– ื•ืžื›ืจ ืจืืฉื•ื ื” ืจื‘ ื—ืกื“ื ืืžืจ ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืจื‘ื™ ื ืชืŸ ื‘ืจ ื”ื•ืฉืขื™ื ืืžืจ ืคื˜ื•ืจ

ยง The mishna states: If the owner of the shearing did not manage to give it to the priest until he dyed it, he is exempt from the obligation of giving the first sheared wool. The mishna further teaches that one who purchases the fleece of the sheep of a gentile is exempt from the obligation of the first sheared wool. It was stated that amoraโ€™im disagreed with regard to one who owned five sheep and he sheared and sold the first sheep before shearing the second, and in this manner sold each sheep after shearing it. When he finished shearing he owned the requisite five fleeces, to which the obligation of the first sheared wool applies, but he no longer owned the sheep. Rav แธคisda says: He is obligated in the mitzva of the first sheared wool; and Rabbi Natan bar Hoshaya says: He is exempt from the mitzva of the first sheared wool.

ืจื‘ ื—ืกื“ื ืืžืจ ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื“ื”ื ื’ื–ื– ืจื‘ื™ ื ืชืŸ ื‘ืจ ื”ื•ืฉืขื™ื ืืžืจ ืคื˜ื•ืจ ื‘ืขื™ื“ื ื ื“ืงื ืžืœื ืฉื™ืขื•ืจื ื‘ืขื™ื ืŸ ืฆืื ืš ื•ืœื™ื›ื

The Gemara clarifies the two opinions. Rav แธคisda says that he is obligated, as he sheared five sheep that he owned at the time of shearing, and therefore the term: โ€œYour flockโ€ (Deuteronomy 18:4), applies to this case. Rabbi Natan bar Hoshaya says that he is exempt, as at the time that the measure of five fleeces is completed, we require the term โ€œyour flockโ€ to apply, since the obligation takes effect at that stage, and in this case it does not apply.

ืชื ืŸ ื”ืœื•ืงื— ื’ื– ืฆืื ื• ืฉืœ ื’ื•ื™ ืคื˜ื•ืจ ืžืจืืฉื™ืช ื”ื’ื– ื”ื ืฆืื ื• ืœื’ื–ื•ื– ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืืžืื™ ื›ืœ ื—ื“ ื•ื—ื“ ื‘ืชืจ ื’ื™ื–ื” ื ืคืงื ืœื” ืžืจืฉื•ืชื™ื”

The Gemara raises a challenge: We learned in the mishna (135a): One who purchases the fleece of the sheep of a gentile is exempt from the obligation of the first sheared wool, as he purchased only the fleece but not the sheep. One can infer from here that if he purchased the gentileโ€™s sheep themselves in order to shear them and then return them to the gentile, he is obligated, because the sheep belonged to him at the time of shearing. But why is he obligated, according to the opinion of Rabbi Natan bar Hoshaya? Each and every one of the sheep, after the shearing is completed, leaves his possession, and when he has sheared five sheep, the term โ€œyour flockโ€ no longer applies to them.

ืชืจื’ืžื ืจื‘ ื—ืกื“ื ืืœื™ื‘ื ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื ืชืŸ ื‘ืจ ื”ื•ืฉืขื™ื ื›ื’ื•ืŸ ืฉื”ืงื ืŸ ืœื• ื›ืœ ืฉืœืฉื™ื ื™ื•ื

Rav แธคisda interpreted the mishna according to the opinion of Rabbi Natan bar Hoshaya: The mishna is referring to a case where the gentile transferred ownership to him for the entire period of thirty days during which the Jew sheared the sheep. Therefore, he retained ownership after he completed shearing, and the term โ€œyour flockโ€ does apply to the sheep at the time when the obligation of the first sheared wool took effect.

ื”ืœื•ืงื— ื’ื– ืฆืื ื• ืฉืœ ื—ื‘ื™ืจื• ื›ื•ืณ ืžืืŸ ืชื ื ื“ื”ื™ื›ื ื“ืื™ื›ื ืฉื™ื•ืจื ื’ื‘ื™ ืžื•ื›ืจ ื‘ืชืจ ืžื•ื›ืจ ืื–ืœื™ื ืŸ

ยง The mishna teaches: With regard to one who purchases the fleece of the sheep of another Jew, if the seller kept some of the wool, then he is obligated to give the first sheared wool to the priest. If the seller did not keep any of the wool, the buyer is obligated to give it. The Gemara asks: Who is the tanna who taught that in a case where there is residual wool in the possession of the seller, we follow the seller in determining who is obligated in the mitzva of first sheared wool?

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื—ืกื“ื ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื”ื™ื ื“ืชื ืŸ ื”ืžื•ื›ืจ ืงืœื—ื™ ืื™ืœืŸ ื‘ืชื•ืš ืฉื“ื”ื• ื ื•ืชืŸ ืคืื” ืœื›ืœ ืื—ื“ ื•ืื—ื“

Rav แธคisda said: The tanna who taught the mishna is Rabbi Yehuda, as we learned in a mishna (Peโ€™a 3:5): With regard to one who sells a few fruit-bearing tree stalks within his field, without selling the field itself, for the buyer to uproot them and plant them in his own field, the buyer gives separate peโ€™a for each and every one of the trees. The field does not combine the trees into a single unit for peโ€™a, as the land is not owned by the buyer.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืื™ืžืชื™ ื‘ื–ืžืŸ ืฉืœื ืฉื™ื™ืจ ื‘ืขืœ ื”ืฉื“ื” ืื‘ืœ ืฉื™ื™ืจ ื‘ืขืœ ื”ืฉื“ื” ื ื•ืชืŸ ืคืื” ืขืœ ื”ื›ืœ

Rabbi Yehuda said: When is it the buyerโ€™s obligation to give peโ€™a? It is when the owner of the field did not leave any of the trees in his possession. But if the owner of the field left some of the trees in his possession, the owner gives peโ€™a for all the trees. Just as in the case of peโ€™a, if the seller left trees for himself then the obligation applies to him, so too, with regard to the first sheared wool, if the seller left some of the wool for himself, the obligation applies to him.

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ื ื•ื”ื ืžืจ ื”ื•ื ื“ืืžืจ ื•ื”ื•ื ืฉื”ืชื—ื™ืœ ื‘ืขืœ ื”ืฉื“ื” ืœืงืฆื•ืจ

Rava said to Rav แธคisda: But wasnโ€™t it you, Master, who said with regard to Rabbi Yehudaโ€™s ruling that the owner gives peโ€™a for all the trees: This is the halakha only when the owner of the field began to harvest the fruit before he sold the trees, as the obligation to give peโ€™a had already applied to him. By contrast, with regard to the first sheared wool, the obligation came into effect only after he sold his sheep.

ื•ื›ื™ ืชื™ืžื ื”ื›ื™ ื ืžื™ ื•ื”ื•ื ืฉื”ืชื—ื™ืœ ืœื’ื–ื•ื– ื‘ืฉืœืžื ื”ืชื ื•ื‘ืงืฆืจื›ื ืืช ืงืฆื™ืจ ืืจืฆื›ื ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืžืขื™ื“ื ื ื“ืืชื—ื™ืœ ืœืงืฆื•ืจ ืžื™ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื‘ื›ื•ืœื” ืฉื“ื” ืืœื ื”ื›ื ืžืขื™ื“ื ื ื“ืืชื—ื™ืœ ืœืžื™ื’ื– ืœื ืžื™ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื‘ื›ื•ืœื™ื” ืขื“ืจื™ื”

And if you would say that so too, with regard to the first sheared wool, this halakha that the seller gives the first sheared wool applies only if the seller began to shear the sheep before he sold them, that explanation is difficult. The Gemara elaborates: Granted, there, with regard to peโ€™a, it is written: โ€œAnd when you reap the harvest of your landโ€ (Leviticus 19:9), which indicates that from the time that he began to harvest he is obligated in the mitzva of peโ€™a with regard to the entire field. But here, in the case of the first sheared wool, he is not obligated with regard to the entire flock from the time that he began to shear his sheep. Therefore, even if he began shearing before he sold the sheep, the obligation to give the first sheared wool should not apply to the seller.

ืืœื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ื”ืื™ ืชื ื ื”ื•ื ื“ืชื ืŸ ืืžืจ ืœื• ืžื›ื•ืจ ืœื™ ื‘ื ื™ ืžืขื™ื” ืฉืœ ืคืจื” ื–ื• ื•ื”ื™ื” ื‘ื”ืŸ ืžืชื ื•ืช ื ื•ืชื ืŸ ืœื›ื”ืŸ ื•ืื™ืŸ ืžื ื›ื” ืœื• ืžืŸ ื”ื“ืžื™ื ืœืงื— ืžืžื ื• ื‘ืžืฉืงืœ ื ื•ืชื ืŸ ืœื›ื”ืŸ ื•ืžื ื›ื” ืœื• ืžืŸ ื”ื“ืžื™ื

Rather, Rava said: It is this tanna who taught the mishna, as we learned in a different mishna (132a): If one said to a butcher: Sell me the innards of this cow, and there were gifts of the priesthood included in them, i.e., the maw, the purchaser must give them to the priest, and he may not deduct the value of the gifts from the money that he pays the butcher, as it is assumed that the gifts were not included in the sale. If he purchased the innards from the butcher by weight, the buyer must give the gifts to a priest and he may deduct the value of the gifts from the money that he pays the butcher. If the priestly gifts have not yet been separated from the animal, the price by weight includes the price of these gifts. But since the priests had the right to their gifts from the time of the slaughter, the buyer does not need to pay for them and may therefore deduct their value from his payment.

ืืœืžื ืžืชื ื•ืช ื“ื›ื”ืŸ ืœื ืžื–ื‘ื™ืŸ ืื™ื ื™ืฉ ื”ื›ื ื ืžื™ ืžืชื ื•ืช ื“ื›ื”ืŸ ืœื ืžื–ื‘ื™ืŸ ืื™ื ื™ืฉ ื”ืœื›ืš ืฉื™ื™ืจ ื”ืžื•ื›ืจ ืžื•ื›ืจ ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื“ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืœื•ืงื— ืžืชื ื” ื“ื›ื”ืŸ ื’ื‘ืš ื”ื™ื ืœื ืฉื™ื™ืจ ืœื•ืงื— ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื“ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืžื•ื›ืจ ืžืชื ื” ื“ื›ื”ืŸ ืœื ื–ื‘ื ื™ ืœืš

Evidently, a person does not sell the gifts belonging to the priest, and therefore they are not included in the sale of the innards unless they were sold by weight. Here too, with regard to the first sheared wool, a person does not sell the gifts belonging to the priest. Therefore, if the seller left wool in his possession, the seller is obligated to give the first sheared wool from the remaining wool for that which he sold, as the buyer can say to the seller: The gift of the priest is in your possession, since you did not sell me everything. If the seller did not leave any wool in his possession, the buyer is obligated to give the first sheared wool and he does not deduct its value from the price, as the seller can say to him: I did not sell the gift of the priest to you, i.e., there was no obligation to give the gifts to a priest when I sold the wool to you, and therefore the buyer is required to give the gifts to the priest.

ื”ื“ืจืŸ ืขืœืš ืจืืฉื™ืช ื”ื’ื–

 

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ืฉื™ืœื•ื— ื”ืงืŸ ื ื•ื”ื’ ื‘ืืจืฅ ื•ื‘ื—ื•ืฆื” ืœืืจืฅ ื‘ืคื ื™ ื”ื‘ื™ืช ื•ืฉืœื ื‘ืคื ื™ ื”ื‘ื™ืช ื‘ื—ื•ืœื™ืŸ ืื‘ืœ ืœื ื‘ืžื•ืงื“ืฉื™ืŸ ื—ื•ืžืจ ื‘ื›ืกื•ื™ ื”ื“ื ืžืฉื™ืœื•ื— ื”ืงืŸ ืฉื›ืกื•ื™ ื”ื“ื ื ื•ื”ื’ ื‘ื—ื™ื” ื•ื‘ืขื•ืฃ ื‘ืžื–ื•ืžืŸ ื•ื‘ืฉืื™ืŸ ืžื–ื•ืžืŸ ื•ืฉื™ืœื•ื— ื”ืงืŸ ืื™ื ื• ื ื•ื”ื’ ืืœื ื‘ืขื•ืฃ ื•ืื™ื ื• ื ื•ื”ื’ ืืœื ื‘ืฉืื™ื ื• ืžื–ื•ืžืŸ

MISHNA: The mitzva of sending away the mother bird from the nest applies both in Eretz Yisrael and outside of Eretz Yisrael, and in the presence of the Temple and not in the presence of the Temple. It applies to non-sacred birds, but it does not apply to sacrificial birds. There are more stringent elements in the covering of the blood than in the sending away of the mother bird from the nest, as the covering of the blood applies to undomesticated animals and birds, to animals and birds that are readily available in oneโ€™s home, and to animals and birds that are not readily available and are hunted in the wild; and the sending of the mother bird from the nest applies only to birds, and applies only to birds that are not readily available.

ืื™ื–ื”ื• ืฉืื™ื ื• ืžื–ื•ืžืŸ ื›ื’ื•ืŸ ืื•ื•ื–ื™ืŸ ื•ืชืจื ื’ื•ืœื™ื ืฉืงื ื ื• ื‘ืคืจื“ืก ืื‘ืœ ืื ืงื ื ื• ื‘ื‘ื™ืช ื•ื›ืŸ ื™ื•ื ื™ ื”ืจื“ืกื™ืื•ืช ืคื˜ื•ืจ ืžืฉื™ืœื•ื— ืขื•ืฃ ื˜ืžื ืคื˜ื•ืจ ืžืœืฉืœื— ืขื•ืฃ ื˜ืžื ืจื•ื‘ืฅ ืขืœ ื‘ื™ืฆื™ ืขื•ืฃ ื˜ื”ื•ืจ ื•ื˜ื”ื•ืจ ืจื•ื‘ืฅ ืขืœ ื‘ื™ืฆื™ ืขื•ืฃ ื˜ืžื ืคื˜ื•ืจ ืžืœืฉืœื— ืงื•ืจื ื–ื›ืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ืžื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื•ื—ื›ืžื™ื ืคื•ื˜ืจื™ืŸ

What are considered birds that are not readily available? They are any birds, even domesticated, that may fly away at any time, such as geese or chickens that nested in the orchard [pardes]. But if geese or chickens nested in the house, and likewise, with regard to domesticated pigeons [yonei hardiseiโ€™ot], one is exempt from sending away the mother bird. With regard to the nest of a non-kosher bird, one is exempt from sending away the mother bird. In a case where a non-kosher bird is resting upon the eggs of a kosher bird, or a kosher bird is resting upon the eggs of a non-kosher bird, one is exempt from sending away the bird. With regard to a male pheasant [korei], which is known to sit upon the eggs like the female of its species, Rabbi Eliezer deems one obligated to send it away, and the Rabbis deem one exempt from sending it away.

ื’ืžืณ ืจื‘ื™ ืื‘ื™ืŸ ื•ืจื‘ื™ ืžื™ื™ืฉื ื—ื“ ืืžืจ ื›ืœ ื”ื™ื›ื ื“ืชื ืŸ ื‘ืืจืฅ ื•ื‘ื—ื•ืฆื” ืœืืจืฅ ืฉืœื ืœืฆื•ืจืš ืœื‘ื“ ืžืจืืฉื™ืช ื”ื’ื– ืœืืคื•ืงื™ ืžื“ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขืื™ ื“ืืžืจ ืจืืฉื™ืช ื”ื’ื– ืื™ื ื• ื ื•ื”ื’ ืืœื ื‘ืืจืฅ

GEMARA: The mishna contains several phrases related to the mitzva of sending away the mother bird from the nest that also appear in the first mishna of several other chapters of this tractate. With regard to this, Rabbi Avin and Rabbi Meyasha made the following statements. One of them said: Anywhere in this tractate that we learned in a mishna that a particular mitzva applies both in Eretz Yisrael and outside of Eretz Yisrael, it is stated needlessly, as those mitzvot are not related to land, such that there is no need to teach that they apply outside of Eretz Yisrael as well. This is true except for the mitzva of the first shearing of wool, which one must give to a priest. It was necessary to teach that that mitzva applies even outside of Eretz Yisrael, to exclude the opinion of Rabbi Ilai, who said: The first shearing is in effect only in Eretz Yisrael.

ื•ื—ื“ ืืžืจ ื›ืœ ื”ื™ื›ื ื“ืชื ืŸ ื‘ืคื ื™ ื”ื‘ื™ืช ื•ืฉืœื ื‘ืคื ื™ ื”ื‘ื™ืช ืฉืœื ืœืฆื•ืจืš ืœื‘ื“ ืžืื•ืชื• ื•ืืช ื‘ื ื• ืกืœืงื ื“ืขืชืš ืืžื™ื ื ื”ื•ืื™ืœ ื•ื‘ืขื ื™ื ื ื“ืงื“ืฉื™ื ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื‘ื–ืžืŸ ื“ืื™ื›ื ืงื“ืฉื™ื ื ื ื”ื•ื’ ื‘ื–ืžืŸ ื“ืœื™ื›ื ืงื“ืฉื™ื ืœื ื ื ื”ื•ื’ ืงื ืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ

And the other one said: Anywhere in this tractate that we learned in a mishna that a particular mitzva applies both in the presence of the Temple and not in the presence of the Temple, it is stated needlessly, as these mitzvot are requirements of the object itself, and there is no need to teach that they apply even after the destruction of the Temple. This is true except for the prohibition against slaughtering an animal itself and its offspring on the same day. It was necessary to teach that this mitzva applies even after the destruction of the Temple, because it might enter your mind to say: Since this prohibition is written in a passage in the Torah discussing the matter of sacrificial animals (see Leviticus, chapter 22), at a time when there are sacrificial animals, i.e., when the Temple is standing, we will abide by it, but at a time when there are no sacrificial animals, after the destruction of the Temple, we will not abide by it. Therefore, that mishna teaches us that this is not so.

ื•ืชืจื•ื™ื™ื”ื• ืืžืจื™ ื›ืœ ื”ื™ื›ื ื“ืชื ืŸ ื‘ื—ื•ืœื™ืŸ ื•ื‘ืžื•ืงื“ืฉื™ื ืœืฆื•ืจืš ืœื‘ื“ ืžื’ื™ื“ ื”ื ืฉื” ืคืฉื™ื˜ื ืžืฉื•ื ื“ืื™ืงื“ืฉ ืคืงืข ืœื™ื” ืื™ืกื•ืจ ื’ื™ื“ ื”ื ืฉื” ืžื™ื ื™ื”

And both of them said: Anywhere in this tractate that we learned in a mishna that a particular mitzva applies both to non-sacred animals and to sacrificial animals, it is stated necessarily. This is the case except for the mishna discussing the sciatic nerve, as it is obvious that the prohibition applies to sacrificial animals as well. Can it enter oneโ€™s mind to say that because it was consecrated, the prohibition of eating the sciatic nerve is abrogated from the animal?

ื•ืœืื• ืื•ืงื™ืžื ื ื‘ื•ืœื“ื•ืช ืงื“ืฉื™ื

The Gemara asks: But didnโ€™t we establish that the mishna there (89b) is referring to offspring of sacrificial animals? Without the mishna, one might have thought that since the offspring was already prohibited as a sacrificial animal before its sciatic nerve was even formed, the prohibition with regard to the latter does not take effect where the former prohibition already exists. If so, it was in fact necessary to teach this halakha.

ื•ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ืื•ืงื™ืžื ื ืœืื• ืžืฉื•ื ื“ืงืฉื™ื ืœืŸ ืœื ืœื™ืชื ื™ ืžืขื™ืงืจื ื ืžื™ ืœื ืชืงืฉื™ ืœืš ืื™ื™ื“ื™ ื“ืชื ื ืœืฆื•ืจืš ืชื ื ื ืžื™ ืฉืœื ืœืฆื•ืจืš

The Gemara responds: But what is the reason we interpreted that mishna as referring to offspring of sacrificial animals? Is it not due to the fact that the question: Let the mishna not teach that the prohibition applies to both non-sacred and sacrificial animals, is difficult for us? It is in response to this question that Rabbi Avin and Rabbi Meyasha stated that even from the outset, this should not pose a difficulty for you. Rather, since the phrase: Applies to both non-sacred and sacrificial animals, is taught necessarily with regard to the prohibition against slaughtering an animal itself and its offspring, it is also taught needlessly with regard to the prohibition against eating the sciatic nerve, to parallel the formula of the other mishna.

ื‘ื—ื•ืœื™ืŸ ืื‘ืœ ืœื ื‘ืžื•ืงื“ืฉื™ื ืืžืื™ ืœื ื“ืืžืจ ืงืจื ืฉืœื— ืชืฉืœื— ืืช ื”ืื ื‘ืžื™ ืฉืืชื” ืžืฆื•ื•ื” ืœืฉืœื—ื• ื™ืฆื ื–ื” ืฉืื™ ืืชื” ืžืฆื•ื•ื” ืœืฉืœื—ื• ืืœื ืœื”ื‘ื™ืื• ืœื™ื“ื™ ื’ื–ื‘ืจ

ยง The mishna states that the mitzva of sending away the mother bird from the nest applies to non-sacred birds, but not to sacrificial birds. The Gemara asks: Why does this mitzva not apply to sacrificial birds? The Gemara responds: As the verse states: โ€œYou shall send the motherโ€ (Deuteronomy 22:7). The verse refers only to a bird that you are commanded to send away, i.e., a non-sacred bird; that excludes this sacrificial bird, which you are not commanded to send away, but rather to bring it to the custody of the Temple treasurer.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ื ื ื”ืœื›ืš ืขื•ืฃ ื˜ื”ื•ืจ ืฉื”ืจื’ ืืช ื”ื ืคืฉ ืคื˜ื•ืจ ืžืฉืœื•ื— ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ื“ืืžืจ ืงืจื ืฉืœื— ืชืฉืœื— ืืช ื”ืื ื‘ืžื™ ืฉืืชื” ืžืฆื•ื•ื” ืœืฉืœื—ื• ื™ืฆื ื–ื” ืฉืื™ ืืชื” ืžืฆื•ื•ื” ืœืฉืœื—ื• ืืœื ืœื”ื‘ื™ืื• ืœื‘ื™ืช ื“ื™ืŸ ื”ื™ื›ื™ ื“ืžื™ ืื™ ื“ื’ืžืจ ื“ื™ื ื™ื”

Ravina says: Therefore, with regard to a kosher bird that killed a person and must now be executed, one is exempt from sending it away. What is the reason for this? It is as the verse states: โ€œYou shall send the mother.โ€ The verse is referring only to a bird that you are commanded to send away, which excludes this bird that you are not commanded to send away, but rather to bring it to court. The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances of this case, i.e., how is this bird that killed a person now resting on its eggs? If this is a case where its verdict of execution was issued,

Scroll To Top